Chatting with a European diplomat recently, the conversation turned to the subject of Iran’s nuclear programme. This diplomat was depressed. He thought Iran was intent on getting the bomb and couldn’t think of anything that would stop it.
(Tehran insists its intentions are purely peaceful, but most western countries think it’s at least interested in the option of developing nuclear weapons.)
I asked about sanctions. Hard to agree and unlikely to have an effect, he thought. Airstrikes? Destabilising and ultimately incapable of stopping Iran from doing what it wants. Continued negotiations? They sound nice, but during the three frustrating years since the European Union first struck a nuclear deal with a Tehran his expectations had taken a nosedive.
So what policy did he advocate, I asked. He still favoured the middle path: action at the United Nations that could lead to sanctions. He couldn’t really see such a strategy succeeding, but considered the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran so bad that the west had to give it a try.

Of course, not everyone in Europe and America thinks the same way. US Senator John McCain pointedly remarks that the only thing worse that military action on Iran would be an Iran with the bomb. President George W. Bush and Tony Blair are thought to have voiced similar thoughts.
And then, there’s the other path, the one often lampooned as appeasement, of talking to Iran.
Iran links its nuclear programme to national security - that’s why it wants security guarantees to be a part of negotiations over the future of its atomic plans. But perhaps the nuclear programme isn’t able to provide such strong security on its own. It seems to depend on using cast-off Pakistani imitations of 1960s European technology, for the crucial process of uranium enrichment at least. Recent progress in Iran’s "research facility" in Natanz has been halting and is slower than expected.
And the offer put forward by the Europeans, the Americans and the rest of the world for Iran to suspend enrichment is clearly a better deal for Tehran than the last such proposal, made a year before.
This is a round-about way of saying that sometimes our leaders aren’t so dumb. Russia, China, the EU and the US have all decided to give diplomacy one more chance, and offered Iran more time to make up its mind and do a deal. That must be the right thing to do. Better to try something you think probably won’t succeed than - as is the case with sanctions - something you think is bound to fail.
And who knows? A deal could even be struck - as long as Iran’s technology is bad enough. Now that’s something that could cheer up my diplomat.
Daniel Dombey

September 22nd, 2006 in Iran | Permalink